Re: KDE liscence question
On Mon, Jun 14, 1999 at 20:17:42 +1000, Shane King wrote:
> IMHO, the GPL is the problem, perhaps what should be done is to try to get
> the FSF to release version 3 of the GPL that allows linking with any DFSG
> code.
> Unfortunately, because the FSF is even more stubborn than KDE or Troll,
> the correct solution to the problem seems unlikely to eventuate. :(
> Not that I don't like the GPL, it's just situations like this that show
> just how much of a point the BSD people have when they call the GPL and
> evil virus...
The GPL's viral nature is to ensure continued freedom of software and foster
growth of the amount of free software. If GPL v3 would allow linking with
any DFSG-free code, it would be weaker for these goals than v2.
GPL v2 ensures that any non-major-system-component library used is licensed
under terms that make it possible to fork of that library's development
under the GPL if need be (think of the X going commercial case in '98).
If GPL v3 were to allow linking to any DFSG-free code, we could get into a
situation in which a company could make a library under a DFSG-free license
that gives them special privileges (a la NPL/QPL), abandon free development
after a while (which likely triggers a free forked version), and continue to
leech improvements from the free version.
In the X case, XFree86 could have chosen to go (L)GPL with their code. They
decided not to, but they had a choice to protect their improvements from
leaching. With an NPL/QPL like license, they wouldn't have had such a
choice.
Don't get me wrong, NPL, QPL, X, BSD, MIT, PD are all free in my book, but I
prefer the (L)GPL's way of insuring continued freedom and protection from
leeches (rather than relying on faith in wellmeaning companies).
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we tried
to cheat them out of and didn't manage. See also DISHONESTY, SNEAKY,
UNDERHAND and JUST LUCKY I GUESS.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
Reply to: